Tweet Buster Keaton Biographies: Which one to buy?

Richard, I just don't enjoy any author nudging me in the ribs with his godawful punning and plain silliness incessantly sprawled throughout a book about a comedian or comedies that should speak for themselves...it detracts from the value of the research that they're writing about.

From William K. Everson in the 1960's with his THE FILMS OF LAUREL & HARDY and THE ART OF W.C. FIELDS through the present day with Brent Walker's MACK SENNETT'S FUN FACTORY, the best, most engaging and enjoyable books, for me at least, refrain from continous extraneous sideshow wisecracks. People like Everson, Maltin, MacGillivray, Curtis, Skredtvedt, Robinson, Blesh, MacBride, Brownlow, Cassara, Walker (and RMR, of course) as well as many others, have consistently been able to hold my interest without resorting to this "Look at me, I'm funny!" approach.

More power to the Good Film Historians, I say.

My problem with Louvish is that regardless who his subject matter is, I never feel I am gaining any new insights that haven't been cribbed from something I've read previously.

And so now I just don't bother with him..

I also come down on the plus side for Louvish's Fields bio.

Robert, how does it compare for you to Jim Curtis' bio on Fields?

The Curtis bio is definitely better, no question there. When I said I came down on the plus side for Louvish I meant I thought the book was worthwhile (especially when it came out). It has of course been superseded by Curtis. At the time it came out I thought Louvish made some intelligent conclusions based on the material he had at hand (his relationship with Hattie comes to mind). Not all of the material he used was new but he sifted it all well.

I also agree that the jokeyness of his writing is going up exponentially and so is the annoyingness of it.

As a kid I loved the Adamson book on the Marxes and remember loving the humour. I've leafed through the book since then and am not quite so enchanted with the humour. (I also grew up on Benchley, and Thurber, and Perelman. Always made sure to have the dictionary beside me when reading Perelman (He's helped me win more than a few Scrabble games.)).

As a kid I loved the Adamson book on the Marxes and remember loving the humour. I've leafed through the book since then and am not quite so enchanted with the humour.

I think Adamson's humor still holds up. He took an enormous risk in trying to write humorously about the Marx Brothers and it's incredible that it worked. But I wish he'd put out an updated, revised edition--plenty of new and exciting things must have happened in Marx studies since then (did they ever find the Kalmar and Ruby script for Go West?) and it'd be a good excuse to put the book back in print.

I spoke with Adamson a few years back at a Cinecon dinner and I asked him if anyone is ever going to uncover a clean un-edited print of HORSEFEATHERS. He didn't say it was improbable but also didn't sound overly hopeful. Not much has changed in the Marx world since he published his book originally. There might not be that much to revise.

The Talmadge family, from what i've read, was well liked by almost everyone but Buster Keaton fans and Anita Loos (though she was happy enough to hang out with them when they were stars). Gee, we're just trying so hard to find someone to blame for all this. I know lot of people who have had bad, bitter divorces and are still mad about it years later. Why is Buster and Natalie's breakup so usual? Especially in those days (lot so long aga) before there was court-enforced visitation and shared custody, it wasn't usual for one parent to get shut out. How do you know Natalie lived her life in the past? I don't understand why the Meade book is wrong when it comes to Buster but right concerning Natalie.

greta[/quote]

You can add F. Scott Fitzgerald to the list. In his 1930’s notebook he wrote “There is undoubtedly something funny about not being a lady, or rather about being a gold digger. You’ve got to laugh a lot like Constance Talmadge.”

You can add F. Scott Fitzgerald to the list. In his 1930’s notebook he wrote “There is undoubtedly something funny about not being a lady, or rather about being a gold digger. You’ve got to laugh a lot like Constance Talmadge.”

Nastiest quote I've ever heard attributed to any of The Talmadge Girls is the oft-repeated one supposedly spoken by Norma to an autograph hound after she retired from the screen: "Go away, dearie, I don't need you anymore." Really conveys the idea of someone with their head stuck up in the clouds (or somewhere else). Could be apocryphal, of course, but whomever spread it around obviously did a good job of circulating it...

I think what has a lot Keaton fans upset was them changing the names of his two sons. Sort of writing Buster out of their lives.

As a kid I loved the Adamson book on the Marxes and remember loving the humour. I've leafed through the book since then and am not quite so enchanted with the humour.

Ok, I'm revising my revision. I leafed through the book again and the humour does still and up. If an update ever did happen it'd likely be mainly in the pre Broadway section. I don't think he could add much more to the analysis's of the films, they're outstanding already.

As a kid I loved the Adamson book on the Marxes and remember loving the humour. I've leafed through the book since then and am not quite so enchanted with the humour.

Ok, I'm revising my revision. I leafed through the book again and the humour does still and up. If an update ever did happen it'd likely be mainly in the pre Broadway section. I don't think he could add much more to the analysis's of the films, they're outstanding already.

I'm not sure if Joe Adamson would want to update his book with the now-known facts even if he were given the opportunity, to wit: all Marx films from A DAY AT THE RACES through GO WEST inclusive lost money, while A NIGHT AT THE OPERA made minimal profit on its initial release. DUCK SOUP was not a tremendous flop commercially in 1933, and A NIGHT IN CASABLANCA was the team's biggest financial success in '46. To update his book would be like toying with the legend which Joe embraced and which is behind his thesis about the Marxes and their films. As much as I enjoy the book (one of the few times that smarty-pants humor works, probably because he has so many interesting observations to make along the way, like the analogy of Bugs Bunny in Dell Comics to the Marxes in MGM stories), I'd have to still disagree strongly about his attitude towards THE COCOANUTS (it's a very funny film, ESPECIALLY with an audience), and A NIGHT IN CASABLANCA (for me the Marxes' best comedy since OPERA).

And given the state of today's crop of alleged movie comedians, would Joe still want to say that Chico Marx as a comedian "comes off great if you compare him to your Uncle Fred"?

But you know, it would be nice if Joe could correct the misstatement that it was Irving Brecher who contributed all those Buster Keaton gags to the GO WEST train climax. Hmm, on second thought...

Ed, are you suggesting that The Big Store actually made a profit? I mean, it must have been a pretty paultry budget, but still...

I'm not sure if Joe Adamson would want to update his book with the now-known facts even if he were given the opportunity, to wit: all Marx films from A DAY AT THE RACES through GO WEST inclusive lost money, while A NIGHT AT THE OPERA made minimal profit on its initial release. DUCK SOUP was not a tremendous flop commercially in 1933, and A NIGHT IN CASABLANCA was the team's biggest financial success in '46. To update his book would be like toying with the legend which Joe embraced and which is behind his thesis about the Marxes and their films. As much as I enjoy the book (one of the few times that smarty-pants humor works, probably because he has so many interesting observations to make along the way, like the analogy of Bugs Bunny in Dell Comics to the Marxes in MGM stories), I'd have to still disagree strongly about his attitude towards THE COCOANUTS (it's a very funny film, ESPECIALLY with an audience), and A NIGHT IN CASABLANCA (for me the Marxes' best comedy since OPERA).

And given the state of today's crop of alleged movie comedians, would Joe still want to say that Chico Marx as a comedian "comes off great if you compare him to your Uncle Fred"?

But you know, it would be nice if Joe could correct the misstatement that it was Irving Brecher who contributed all those Buster Keaton gags to the GO WEST train climax. Hmm, on second thought...

Ed, are you suggesting that The Big Store actually made a profit? I mean, it must have been a pretty paultry budget, but still...

I know it's hard to believe, Rob...but according to John McElwee in his excellent "Greenbriar Picture Show" blog, THE BIG STORE's negative cost was $850,000, least costly of all Marx MGM films, and it made a net profit of $33,000...keeping in mind that the last Marx MGM outing to make a profit was A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, which according to Sam Marx cost $1.1 million and only netted in the neighborhood of $100,000...and nothing in between (RACES, ROOM SERVICE, AT THE CIRCUS or GO WEST) showed a profit at the time of initial release.

No wonder Groucho was always kvetching about holding onto his money, worried that he would become another Eddie LeSaint or Wilfred Lucas, "tomorrow's forgotten extra." And we thought Groucho was only kidding...apparently he felt he had reason to worry!